Books

UPDATE: Heartland documents stolen and key one is fake. No insider leak. FakeGate!

Major embarrassment for Joe Romm, and DeSmog and their unthinking fans.

In the hours after the ClimateGate emails were released, skeptics asked about their authenticity (as we are wont to do). In the hours after the Heartland Documents (including at least one complete fake) were released, the commentators on the other side did not even ask (just as they uncritically accept any weak report in favour of their pet theory).

They leapt to their defamatory conclusions in a smear-fest. At least one person out there has probably committed a criminal act. The rest are guilty of small brained unskeptical blind hatred, defamation, and ignorance. And will any of them apologize? I’ll be shocked if even one has the decency or manners.

We should not allow them to forget it. DeSmog=DeSmear. They are a group happy to promote lies with no compunction. They are not interested in the truth, just in the PR. Oh the fool journalists who think the paid hacks at DeSmog ever had anything to say on science that was not biased or deceitful. Richard Littlemore, where is your apology? Instead, knowing the document is faked, he continues to promote it. So does Brad Johnson, and Joe Romm.

Their attitude to the science is just the same to their attitude to falsified documents. They don’t care. They were all happy to trumpet an insider leak, yet none of them admit they were wrong, or showed poor judgment when it turned out the documents were obtained through trickery, deceit and malicious misbehaviour. Shame, they only had to email Joe Bast to ask. Even the most minor effort to get to the truth is too much to expect.

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 – The following statement from The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Communications Director Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.

Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.

The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site at http://www.heartland.org or call 312/377-4000.

UPDATE:Anthony Watts discusses the document that Heartland describes as fake, finding that it is scanned with different software to all the others, on a different date, with sloppy standards of editing. DeSmog had this document for only one hour before posting it, without checking with Heartland. It appears to have been created on the west coast of the US, but Heartland have no offices there. I do hope they can find the person who created it.

Andy Revkin (NYT) blogged about the documents very quickly, without checking, and has written an email to Craig Idso admitting that the doc might be fraudulent. That things are “wacky”, and he will wait til the dust settles…

233 comments to UPDATE: Heartland documents stolen and key one is fake. No insider leak. FakeGate!

Joe Romm joined MY forum to see what Richard S. Courtney was doing there.This was right after he banned Richard from his blog since Mr. Romm could not handle Richard S. Courtneys effective counterpoints.

He spent a short while looking through my forum but never posted or send a PM.Then he left never visited again afterwards and was deleted by me from the membership list after a year.I do that with anyone who never post and or revisit after the initial registration as part of my forum security measures.

Mr. Littlemore deleted a very civil and calm comment I wrote at his blog.After that I never tried again because I knew that he is a miserable person not deserving the opportunity of deleting any more of my valid comments.

Actually read a few paragraphs of Graham’s rant – can’t force myself to read the whole thing. The logical inconsistencies are laughable and obvious advocacy bias is well… onvious. Is this the level the ABC now stoops to? I fired a few salvos, but I doubt most will make it through ABC moderation censorship.

I just posted an offer to do a similar article on Professor Tim Flannery, in the interests of “balance”. Full post below:

Interestingly detailed hatchet job on Professor Bob Carter, considering we are only talking about $1667.00 a month.

As a published, freelance journalist myself I’m just wondering if the Editors of Unleashed would be interested, for “balance”, in a similarly detailed analysis of Professor Tim Flannery’s association with and possible income from, assorted NGO “think tanks” and “advocacy groups”?

I will quite happily supply details of my full name plus previously published articles (several hundred) and books (3), upon receipt of your expression of interest.

Actually Mark James, there is nothing “anonymous” about me to the ABC. They know who I am. I have been interviewed dozens of times on various ABC and SBS programs – albeit many years ago – as well as appearing on most of the current affairs shows of that time, including 60 Minutes. I even had a weekly guest spot on the “Ray Martin Midday Show” for a while, until I upset Bob Hawke.

My nic “memoryvault” simply serves as a divisor in my life between that period before I had a stroke, and that period after it.

I am the person who first disclosed the existence of the international surveillance system now known as “Project Echelon”; I am the person who started the campaign against the ID Card legislation in the 1980′s; I was the one who exposed the National Safety Council of Victoria as a CIA front and correctly predicted its director – John Freidrichs – would show up somewhere between Geraldton and Carnarvon. I wrote the original articles on the White House pedophile sex scandal in the days of George Bush Senior.

My books and my newsletter (pre-internet days we had to actually WRITE and MAIL the info to PAID subscribers) are available from the National Library, and several State Libraries. I could go on but the point is the ABC know who I am and what I am capable of. So are they prepared to live up their claim of “impartiality” or not?

My original post was not so much an offer as a challenge – are they prepared to publish a similar expose of Professor Tim Flannery’s financial connections or not? The fact that my inbox remains empty would suggest they are not, and therefore all claims by the ABC to “impartiality” are a farce.

Your comment reminds me of an interview many years ago of the legendary Johnny Young by the even more legendary Molly Meldrum. Some long forgotten young one hit wonder had just described Johnny Young as a “has been”, and Molly asked Johnny for his take on that.

Johnny replied thus:

“I’d rather be a has-been than a never was, because a has-been once was, and never was never will be.”

Feel free to insult me as much as you like sonny-boy. Until you’ve actually got some runs on the board, it’s just water off an old duck’s back.

I note there is a lot of feral CAGW stuff too… do a word count on denial, denier etc. You’d be alarmed. There is quite a bit of, “we are fed up … we know where you live” sentiment starting to come out. I try not to stoop anywhere near that level myself, but that doesn’t stop the crazies.

But he is a Green zealot* … it is that fire in his belly (hopefully a non-CO2 emitting one) that keeps him going after all logic and reason has failed him so long ago. He keeps the useful idiots aligned and on the path of the cause.

Actually if you could ever get him to answer an honest question, I would like to ask “What made you stop being a journalist and become a Green advocate?” I am always more curious why people do what they do, not what they do … after all, the latter is easily verifiable. I find it curious what is so broken in people’s thought processes that they can’t seem to grasp basic common sense.

This beat up truly deserves to be called “Denialgate” because only a conspiracy of dunces deep in denial could possibly believe this PR campaign will serve their interests.

The real news value is not that the Heartland Institute is a skeptical organisation that supports skeptics. Duh.

It’s that the Heartland budget is so puny compared to the eco-NGO’s. And that it’s under a massive attack for fund raise techniques and activities that are well within the ethical norms of any NGO.

That’s the take away that will stick with the uncommitted public no matter how hard the media spins it.

Denialgate is the biggest PR catastrophe for the Warmists since they tried to charm us to death with their droll sense of humour. The Heartland docs are not as dramatic as the 10 10 10 snuff fantasy, but the end result will be increased donations to the underfunded skeptical science and a public growing ever more increasingly leery of shrill Warmist exaggeration and hypocrisy.

By peddling the stolen Heartland documents as the equivalent to the Climategate scandal the Warmists will get the public’s attention alright. But when the public looks into the facts, what they’ll come away with is quite damaging to the Green agenda.

Here’s why:

1. As Jo Nova point out talking about the massive funding imbalance in favour of the Warmists is bound to backfire, especially since the Warmists have had a pretty good run with the Big Oil deep pockets myth.

Comparing balance sheets wasn’t never in the eco-NGO interests. The public sold on the false – but plausible sounding – Big Oil narrative for the last decade are now offered a second look and will be shocked to find that the eco-NGO’s are funded 100 to 1 over the tiny little Heartland Institute, by…wait for it…Big Oil.

People hate to be lied too.

2. By pitching Denialgate as a fraud on the scale of Climategate not only are Warmists attracting many more eyes then the story merits, but those eyes will come away remembering one thing — Climategate was much worse. The Warmist idiots are comparing their scientific conspiracy to commit fraud to the legitimate and ethical fund raising efforts of an political NGO? Worse, Denialgate will introduce even more of the public to the narrative of Climategate!

Warmist PR policy should be to never ever mention Climategate… but here they have projected Climategate right back into the headlines and even enshrined it in the narrative “Denialgate” which will forever reference back to Climategate.

This is a massive propaganda failure.

3. The Heartland documents are political not scientific like the Climategate emails. Once again we have desperate Warmists dying to talk about anything but the science, going for personal smear rather than the facts. The uncommitted public don’t like negative ads. This will only sell to the choir, who do not need convincing. Or do they???

4. Since November 2009 when the first Climategate emails were liberated the Warmists have had a horror couple of years. Global Cooling, hide the decline and mounting evidence for emerging and competing climate theories have crushed the Warmists’ morale. Collapse of UN climate talks and the IPCC credibility is free fall.

Even with billions of dollars to fund their propaganda campaigns the global public is turning against them by the tens of millions.

When political movements become desperate they can make the mistake of sending out messages that are good for bolstering the morale of the true believers, but will damage their cause if transmitted widely to the uncommitted public. This is one of those moments.

The Heartland Institute might be well known to by the Warmist and Skeptical activists but its public profile is low compared to Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund. So thanks to “Denialgate” tens of millions of people unfamiliar with the Heartland Institute will learn its name and purpose exactly at a point in time when the tide of public opinion is dramatically shifting towards exactly what Heartland stands for. The Warmist true believers already hate skeptics, so what’s the value in raising the public profile of a under funded political opposition?

It’s an absolutely counterproductive smear campaign at every level save one. It feels so good to Warmists truly in denial of the coming political catastrophe they face in 2012-13. It’s their party like it’s 1999 moment.

Denialgate was created by and for Warmists so that they could have one last happy toast of schnapps in their bunker before the end of the their tragicomic rise frosts over….

I am astounded at the level of “hope” this has generated in the Warmists! By the gods, it seems maybe they fear that all their faith has been misused and misplaced. For them to have such exuberant hope that this petty story will cause us skeptics to come unglued is a really clear indication that they now fear they have lost.

The AGW ship is taking on water and has begun to flounder. Ironic, but maybe we should ask for more petty leaks……..Someone that knows how to apply reverse propaganda (is there such a thing?) might be very helpful about now.

Right – so now we know they trickle out puny amounts of money to people who are already well known. We already knew they were behind a lot of information being published, but then, we know Greenpeace are behind a lot of information. I don’t see how this changes things.

I’m not sure how this hurts the cause of the climate skeptics. It’s not like they were caught out fabricating data or anything.

The only factual statement I have seen on this is that Bob Carter didn’t disclose his funding source. This is true – until now most of us didn’t know this.

But I’m stumped if I can work out how undisclosed funding actually changes anything at all. It certainly won’t make the models correct or restore the hockey stick as correct.

I think it’s just a case of a bit of morale among the troops. A battle of the bulge, if you will. It doesn’t really further the ‘big oil’ meme much – if anything the amounts involved are ridiculously small. They just want to believe that skeptics are pushing information to further the cause of big oil, when big oil pretty much doesn’t care either way, I suspect, given they seem to fund both sides of the debate. I suppose this is probably having an each-way bet, which is a sensible strategy. I guess oil execs have more important things to think about, like finding more oil.

The media coverage is hilarious! 2012 is the year we’re going to have get over our aversion to the word… Denialism. Because, it’s the only term that clinically describes the psychological condition the Warmists suffer. Deep in denial with delusions of grandeur.

Warmist Derangement Syndrome?

I really feel sorry for the Warmists. But I can’t stop laughing..

The Heartland heist is a case study in a bungled dirty tricks smear campaign. It has none of the ennobling qualities of the Climategate email liberation, which was about trying to get at tax-payer fund data and code being withheld against freedom of information laws. FOIA is enforcing the ethical standards of scientific investigations to be performed transparently, subject to third party testing. The CRU email liberators are quite literally archetypal heroes slaying corruption and exposing a conspiracy.

The Heartland petty theft is just some paid political thugs stealing some other political advocacy group’s documents for the most mercenary of reasons. Then upon finding they had stolen nothing of value the punks tried to slip a couple of inept forgeries into the fold. And it still doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. It’s a typical puerile Greenpeace stunt, like destroying farm crop studies or hanging banners from bridges stuffing up the morning commute for tens of thousands of workers…. Great one-off high-fives for the faithful loonies, but it leaves a plume of lingering poisonous residuals in the public’s view of Greenies.

Imagine if Jo Nova received stolen documents that showed George Soros gave $25,000 to Greenpeace and they were going to spend $100,000 on classroom educational materials. She wouldn’t post it, because first it’s not news. Second, it’s unethical and would expose her to lawsuits and Thirdly, why present evidence supporting the fund raising cause of your political opposition? Let them do their own fund raising PR work.

Besides, even if Jo Nova was handed authentic documents proving Greenpeace was funded by Osama Bin Laden it wouldn’t get as much media coverage as OMG! DENIALGATE!. THE GREATEST FRAUD EVER PERPETUATED ON HUMANITY IN THE MODERN ERA!

And the least expensive one ever too!…Those Heartland blokes sure do get a bang for the buck! …I can stop laughing at hilarity of it all.

The Green(peace?) dirty tricks team is so transparent…. Naturally, it’s the forged document that attempt to isolate Dr. Judith Curry and Andrew Revkin as heretics. Even the mildest questioning of Warmist Orthodoxy is such a threat that eco-spooks are paid to excommunicate those who dare to stray from the Gospel.

But listen to the pathetic worm Revkin begging for forgiveness, pleading that he’s no objective journalist willing to consider climate heresies, but a faithful and sycophantic hack:

“Finally, I don’t know why they would think I’m neutral,” Revkin added. “I’m a passionate advocate, actually — for reality. By that I mean I try to keep in mind the full picture of greenhouse-driven climate change revealed by science, including aspects that are well understood and those that remain veiled by durable complexity and real uncertainty.”

So Revkin isn’t neutral, he a passionate advocate — for reality… Journalists aren’t suppose to be passionate advocates for anything, much less some excitable universal view of REALITY. An ethical journalist is a cool customer who asks, “just the fact, ma’am.”

Revkin willingly outted himself as a hack just to get back into the good graces of his church.

Speaking of wannabe con artists so deep in denial that reality is melting like wax around them:

The purported Heartland documents are “a window into the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity in the modern era,” said Brendan DeMelle, managing editor of the DeSmogBlog. “It’s Denialgate if there ever was one.”

Brendan is so addled that he doesn’t realise he’s projecting his own subconscious insecurities about the Warmist cause.

Insanely disproportionate claims made in moments of hyper-excitement often reveal information about a person that the person is hiding even from himself. Brendan is coming apart at the seams. He lives in terror of what “the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity in the modern era” really is and he just unconsciously projected that information to the whole world. He’s so compartmentalised his insecurities that his mind is talking to itself through media press releases!

Projection inadvertently revealing hidden truth is one of the great hazards that propagandists should avoid. Every good con artist knows not to mention the topic of fraud while conning his mark.

Denialgate is a trove of inadvertently informative insights into the psychology and culture of the Warmists and the media which support them, while it says almost nothing about the skeptics other then they underfunded and need your donations now.

It is interesting to actually take a look and find out the truth. Looking at the real documents on the Heartland site is an eye opener because it actually shows the lengths to which some will go in order to smear others…..

Attracted by today’s scandalous revelations, I went hunting (well, all I actually did was to open the links at desmogblog.com). What a comedy! The zombies are outraged that Bob Carter is paid $20,000 a year to co-edit Heartland’s NIPCC journal with US physicist Fred Singer (who is paid considerably more). They really have become a caricature of themselves, cheered on by gullible children like Graeme Redfearn at the ABC’s propaganda website, The Drum. It’d be funny if our taxes weren’t paying for it. Watch out, kids. The adults will be home soon.

if only Watts/Big Mac/Bish/Jo and others were receiving those billions the CAGW boys and girls are getting.

the EU’s unilateral and insane aviation carbon dioxide tax has not even begun, yet…

16 Feb: Australian Daily Telegraph: Phil Jacob: Qantas to cut 500 jobs as profits drop 83 per cent
FIRST it was the banks, then it was Qantas – and today even more iconic brands announced job cuts in yet another blow for worried workers.
Qantas kicked off a horror day by declaring it would slash 500 jobs, followed closely by oil refiner Caltex which ominously declared it would determine the fate of 800 workers within the next six months.
Next was breads and spreads maker Goodman Fielder, which will axe 300 jobs, before Bonds joined the party with 100 workers on the chopping block.
The timing couldn’t have been worse, with the news coming as the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported the unemployment rate fell from 5.2 per cent to 5.1 per cent in January – its lowest level in six months.
Bizarrely, the statistics revealed there were 23 million fewer hours worked during January. The tally was also at odds with recent Roy Morgan figures that painted a very different picture of the “real economy”.
Unemployment in January, as measured by Roy Morgan, was 10.3 per cent – up 2.4 per cent since January last year – suggesting about 1,278,000 Australians were jobless and looking for work.
The Roy Morgan numbers are now more than double the official ABS mark.
University of Western Sydney professor Steven Keen described the disparity as “remarkable”, adding: “Clearly there’s something wrong if one research is suggesting the economy is doing well and the other is very dire.”…http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/hundreds-face-sack-as-qantas-swings-the-axe/story-e6freuzr-1226272194851

i could tell u about three more shops that have closed down in my small town, which i only discovered today, but why depress u when our own carbon dioxide tax is still to come and who knows how many businesses that will shut down. it will not be pretty.

time for the Coalition to come clean as well about whether or not it has abandoned an ETS.

There has been considerable analysis done on the fake document on Watts Up With That, Bishop Hill, and so forth. The document is clearly invalid. As one commenter said, may it ratchet things up a few notches, in our favor.

At this point in time, I would like to sincerely thank the perpetrators of this theft of communications for bringing to light just how insignificant funding the sceptical community actually gets is, compared to the billions spent of trying to push the AGW fraud.

Well, we have docs in the wild, and Heartlands word for it, how they were helped escape.

The strategy doc is interesting. Obviously scanned, and formatted differently. Put together in fact much like what you could expect for a document that maybe wasn’t done by someones PA and was only ever destined for limited confidential release to a ” subset of Institute Board and senior staff.” Its certainly plausible, but of course it could be a complete fabrication. So far there isn’t anything other than opinion either way.

Something like this happens and everybody on either side gets exited and sees themselves as some kind of document sleuth from CSI.

Easy for the Heartland people to reinforce their position though. Just release their email records to the police doing the investigation so that exactly what docs went with it are clear.

One would hope that all the other docs are attached as that makes their story that it was a phishing attack more believable. If they aren’t it will cast doubt on how the docs escaped into the wild in the first place and leave open other possibilities.

And meanwhile we get to see the skeptic outrage at “stolen documents”, even where they have been apparently reproduced in full and not selectively mis-quoted like some other stuff that was around lately?

Interesting that the document’s own internal record shows that it was created on February 13. Just exactly how does that fit in with your “conspiracy theory” given that it’s supposed to relate to a meeting held in January?

And believe me, I’m not “exited”, although if you realised what was good for you, probably you should be.

Does this has anything to do with the fact that it does not warm? 15 years on no warming, 14 years of cooling? Does this has anything to do with the fact that ARGO shows no ocean warming and envisat no sea level rise?
Did Heartland bought those thermometers so that they show no warming? Oh this is what was revealed! Or not?
Do the documents show skeptics conspirating about not allowing warmista’s publicising their papers? No?
It shows an organisation paying for projects? Ah?
Is Heartland an organisation subject to FOIA? Did any warmista tried to get documents that he was entitled to receive and was denied on various lies? No?
CAGW is almost dead and this comedy is only accelerating its demise.
Have fun with your popcorn and watch

I am also having a running debate on Facebook with a posted that claims that “As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.”

When an organisation as one-sided and manipulative as Heartland calls for ‘common decency and journalistic ethics’ it makes a laughing stock of itself. Where was Heartland standing up and calling for cool heads and ethics when someone hacked into a university computer and stole years of emails? We didn’t hear them call for ethics then. And we haven’t heard them call for ethics and responsibility now that 6-7-8 enquiries have absolved the emails authors and their institutions.

They look stupid calling for decency and ethics at this point.”

She shut up rather quickly when I posted in response at least for now that
“Seeing that they are seeking the persons who leaked the documents and intend to prosecute them,maybe I should use the e-mail address provided and tell them that Gillian King desires also to be prosecuted for making accusations such as “When an organisation as one-sided and manipulative as Heartland calls for ‘common decency and journalistic ethics” without any proof whatsoever,on a public site such as FB.”

Where was Heartland standing up and calling for cool heads and ethics when someone hacked into a university computer and stole years of emails?

Two words: “public servant”. Scientists who want to protect their privacy and research should seek funding exclusively from the private sector. Kinda like the heartland institute does…

If you work for the gubmint, you work for the people. We own your lazy, unemployable a$$! The very notion that climate scientists at the Hadley Cru weren’t obliged to share their science with the general public speeks volumes about the character(read: entitlement attitude) of these crooks.

And we haven’t heard them call for ethics and responsibility now that 6-7-8 enquiries have absolved the emails authors and their institutions.

Can you name these enquiries? I’ve only heard of three whitewashes, where, the defendants were allowed to give evidence in private, not under oath, without references and in investigations which were conducted by their freinds and professional associates, at princely costs to the tax payers might I add.

They look stupid calling for decency and ethics at this point.

Yes, because no sane person would call for decency and ethics in relation to technocratically prejudiced policies which affect our entire way of, am I right?

2. Heartland is completely privately funded. Hadley CRU, Michael Mann, and the IPCC are completely PUBLICLY funded. I work for a government agency. You are told from day one that you should have absolutely ZERO expectation of “privacy” whatsoever on anything you do on a government-funded or provided computer.

3. Journalistic ethics? You can’t even get the Hadley CRU to publish the codes they use to manipulate data!

In short, you are all for government funded entities that are CLEARLY one-sided, and when you are presented with a privately funded entity that tries to look at issues from MORE THAN ONE SIDE you claim they are one-sided.

No worries Michael, the first time I read it I was thinking “WTF?” So I read it again, and got the gist of it. What Oggi did in fixing it is what I reasoned you meant after that 2nd read. Kudos to Oggi’s reading teacher.

You aren’t the first to realize once it was posted that what you wrote didn’t quite convey what you were thinking as you wrote it. I doubt you’ll be the last either. I’ve come to rely on the “preview” button quite a bit here, and even with that I still see typos or other things once I hit “post comment” that leave me wishing for an edit button too.

(Ross your comment is way off topic.PeterB you are replying to does not talk about politics in either of his two comments.He talked about government based science funding and the scientific method)

(You are still in moderation for a good reason maybe permanently because you are chronically off topic and your comments tedious and stupid) CTS

When on earth did America lose trust in their democratically elected government? Either your government is elected by the people for the people or you don’t never had one? The libertarian nonsensical arguments about hyper free markets is what you got you all in this darn mess. A bit government of regulation on your so called freedoms would have not have had wall street offering so much credit. I roll my eyes at the developing political brain dead junk coming out of America from one of your front runner Republicans.

I mean to say – this guy is brain dead when it comes to science. Your health system is in a mess. If I had heart attack tomorrow without some kind of insurance – look out I’ll either die or have to fund it some how on credit upwards to $15,000.

Your economy is in a mess. Your employment is in a screaming heap. Yet you trust these organisations of libertarian nonsensical to somehow help and get you out of this mess. Warning tea party* or should say “tears” party up ahead for America. * Truly as merger of right wing fit to religious para-church involvement in a political muddle up. Where on earth do you think the anti-climate movement gets some its springboard from? And for those reading I understand far better then most here how the mind of a ultra fundamentalist Christian activist works in political and climate arenas.

Just look at their policies. Remove and lower SS benefits, Stop Universal Health. Anti-Fracking science is a liberal conspiracy. Tobacco banning is infringement of citizen rights. Removal of company taxes. What do you know – this little beat up Organisation thinks it can take on Climate Science proper (most two thousand scientists and counting*) with some the WEAKEST scientific arguments ever penned in incipient scientists. The list is endless and it simply is an ultra right cause I find very unsavoury even to our Liberal Conservative standards here in Australia.

This is not off topic at all. It is how a libertarianism has gone rife in America and is literally at the fringes of political and science judgement. Even our Australian Liberal politics finds this unsavoury.

(The President of the USA is a DEMOCRAT.The Congress is composed of 99.99% Democrats and Republicans with several Independents in the mix.You are as usual way off the mark and coming across as woefully ignorant) CTS

The followers here are simply not aware of the hidden agendas of this organisation like “fracking is dangerous and is a fraudulent science”. If they fully oppose any banning of fracking you can see clearly that THIS IS A POLITICAL POLICY DRIVEN ORGANISATION and NOT a SCIENCE (even legitimate) science based source.

(The Heartland Institute stated mission is: The mission of the Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.) CTS

WHY? BECAUSE MY DEAR SIRS & MADAMS – Science never starts from a preceptive opposing bias. That is not the scientific method at all. That is getting someone with bias not letting the evidence lead but rather by pre-conception of thought determine the outcome. That is a faith / self belief / opinionated world-view ideology that pre-determines the outcome. Not letting the evidence as it stands lead the conclusion. Therefore it is FRAUDULENT science or simply propaganda.

(You have not once showed that you understood what the Scientific Method is) CTS

(It is funny that this tiny think tank bothers you so much.Their influence is very small compared to well known propaganda sites such as the misnamed GreenPeace,WWF,the sierra club and more.They run on budgets that exceed 50 million a year (the low end) to over 700 million a year.All known environmentalist leftists organizations) CTS

AS Climate investigator of some five years I find a majority of the best science papers let the data lead rather then the “lead” the data. It is called follow the dog tail wag syndrome. This is what Heartland do – they want a PRE-DETERMINED outcome so they CHERRY pick their scientists who in turn come to a disposition they PAY for. How many trips fully paid from Heartland do you think get paid out to fellow Australia’s. I understand quite few. And you know where that is going don’t you?

(Yawn…..) CTS

It is simply un-Australian to support this organisation just because it suits your anti-climate agenda whilst ignoring the rest of the baggage they have on board.

(Speaking of baggage when are you going to drop your one sided diatribe against Heartland and talk about DeSmog blog and their possible criminal behavior in refusing to remove the the fake document as requested?) CTS

(It is clear that you are a hypocritical irrational and even illogical being.A triple play is what YOU can brag about to your friends) CTS

I never implied at ALL that any Heartland [hired] scientist come to a predisposed result.

What I said was – they CHERRY pick their scientists to come to a pre-disposed position they already know will fit their agenda.

i.e. Dr Bob Carter is well known as being highly likely to be anti-warmist. So they him ask to write a paper to do such.

Dr Bob Carter then writes as usual his argument. Heartland then have got what they wanted – PRE-CONCEPTIVE science which is really not that objective. It is like me going to a communist and asking him to write an economics paper on capitalism and then use it as factual education.

What I said was – they CHERRY pick their scientists to come to a pre-disposed position they already know will fit their agenda.

i.e. Dr Bob Carter is well known as being highly likely to be anti-warmist. So they him ask to write a paper to do such.

Dr Bob Carter then writes as usual his argument. Heartland then have got what they wanted – PRE-CONCEPTIVE science which is really not that objective. It is like me going to a communist and asking him to write an economics paper on capitalism and then use it as factual education.

In all my years of frequenting blogs, reading many thousands of comments from thousands of commentors, have I ever come across a comment so deeply ignorant, so profoundly hypocritical as this one from Ross James of Brisbane.

My eyes have glazed over, my mind is so profoundly perplexed that I just don’t know how to respond to this….this…this drivvel.

I hereby recommend; nay I demand that Jo preserves this comment for posterity, possibly as a link on the sidebar, with full citation for Ross James of Brisbane.

(I have this mental picture of you pounding the keys frantically, no stopping to edit or check — pidgin English be damned — spittle flying, eyes wide with rage.)

Hey Ross; you’re getting enraged over a fantasy — it’s all in your fevered mind, not the real world. (For example, it was government regulations that forced the banks — and Wall Street — to offer so much bad credit.) Check your meds, man — taken your lithium lately? Somebody has sold you a bill of goods; get mad at him/them. Without America, you would be a slave. You owe pretty much everything you are or can be to our “so-called freedoms” (and our unshakable resolve to keep them). Chill, man.

First of all, define “climate scientist”. There is no degree in “Climatology” that I am aware of.

Second, you do not understand the current structure of America very well at all do you?

Corporations (which are legally very different from businesses) hire lobbyists, who then WRITE THE REGULATIONS that are passed by Congress, the EPA, other agencies, etc.

These regulations STRONGLY FAVOR the corporations, which gives them an unfair business advantage over the average business, and allows the corporations to grow and expand their power. Their expansion of power gives them more control over the “democratically elected” government.

Third:

“I mean to say – this guy is brain dead when it comes to science. Your health system is in a mess. If I had heart attack tomorrow without some kind of insurance – look out I’ll either die or have to fund it some how on credit upwards to $15,000.” is compete BS. There is this thing called a LAW in America which REQUIRES a hospital to TREAT YOU regardless of your ability to demonstrate the ability to pay, ESPECIALLY in EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. Therefore, if you were in America and had a heart attack tomorrow, YOU WOULD GET CARE AMONG THE BEST IN THE WORLD, even if you didn’t even have a wallet in your pocket and looked like a bum!

Lastly, of COURSE science doesn’t start from an opposing bias. Science is the ability to recognize when your own (or someone else’s) hypothesis is complete BS and needs to be rejected.

If the warmistas had the slightest clue what the scientific method actually was, they would have rejected the Anthropogenic CO2-based warming hypothesis years ago, because it has been FALSIFIED REPEATEDLY.

Clinging like a drowning rat to a falsified hypothesis and then calling others “anti-science” is the most patently ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

The reason the American economy tanked is some politicians got the bright idea that forcing banks to make risky loans to previously ineligible loanees would….get them more votes. This misguided effort ultimately collapsed the mortgage market, and capsized the American, and world, economy. The present American president, formerly as a ‘community organizer’, personally trained agitators to publicly pressure/embarrass banks in support of this political effort.

Lesson: Extent of government intervention into a market economy tends to distort that market economy to a similar extent.

Governments worldwide, under the auspices of the IPCC (on the basis of arguable “science”)are now trying to transform entire economies built over hundreds of years based on the unprovable belief that a trace gas (0.04% of total atmosphere) will spin the climate out of control.

Jo keeps this blog running at her own expense, which can be significant at times. It’s called volunteerism. You know, giving back to the community. It is unlike the entitlement attitude of some who think they are owed in this life and the next.

It’s time to grow up and face the cold hard facts. The money is with the CAGW advocates. We are the resistance. That makes us the cool kids and you the moronic street corner bullies. Get over it, and hang out with us instead, we’re way more clued on the what’s going on in the world than the misanthropists. And…

[Speaking for myself, I am a volunteer moderator. I receive zero* compensation from Heartland or anyone else for my work preventing people with poor manners from causing trouble. Unlike you Jeremy C, I have clicked on the PayPal button and donated cash to the cause. Even though I donate my time and money to this blog, I DO NOT feel I'm owed an answer to the question you rudely ask. So where do you get the sense that you are owed an answer?] ED

[If you continue with these useless comments you will be cut off.] ED

*zero in monetary compensation. Daily I am rewarded by the authority to snip useless and mindless comments as well as sending idiot warmbots to the digital abyss.

(You continue pestering JO about getting money from Heartland it will be snipped. She has already answered someone else about it) CTS

Oh Bob, as my accountant falls asleep doing my tax returns do you think they are of any interest. I can honestly say I do not receive any money for wrt to climate change and I certainly don’t receive any money for expressing an opinion based on ideology dressed up as fact wrt to AGW.

The point, Jeremy, which you seem to be a little slow taking up, is that your tax returns are none of our business, and neither is Jo’s or the Heartland Institute’s because all are privately funded. However, the CRU, NASA, NOAA, etc. are publicly funded and their funding, data, and analysis code IS the public’s business.

You could offer to donate $10,000 to Jo’s website on the condition she lets you see her funding and see what happens. That might be enough, it might take more — you’ll only find out by trying. I’m sure your respective lawyers could arrange the exchange.

I was thinking that the Carbonistas/watermelons have probably put in more than 3 x the Greek debt towards manipulated data, manufactured consensus, dodgy tree-rings and armageddon. The Heartland Institute on the other hand only needs a budget of $6.4 million to bring the whole carbonistas/watermelons agenda/cause unstuck.

It would sensibly follow that with a budget of $6.4 million the Heartland Institute could fix the Greek debt crisis by the end of the week, and have change left over to delve into Italy’s problems on the weekend.

Ironically, the financial details of the Heartland Institute are not much different from those of the David Suzuki Foundation, the parent company of TheSmearBlog. Both have a budget of roughly $7 million although it appears Suzuki relies on large corporations more than Heartland even though Suzuki bare-ass lies about it. In the Suzuki Foundation Annual Report it states:

We rely entirely on donations
to fund our work and only
accept funds that fit with our
Ethical Gift Acceptance Policy

Manwichstick, no it’s not OK to “interfere” with science education at least if you believe it is presently taught purely and without political bias.

and you say:

Where I am from, (Ontario, Canada) that sort of adulteration of our science textbooks doesn’t happen

I hope you are correct (since I’m not there I’ll take your word for it). But you must admit that AGW with all of the associated fearmongering HAS been introduced into all sorts of curriculum? I’d say that IS INTERFERENCE and I’ve see evidence of it in the USA for years as my children went through grades K-12.

“aren’t you folks at all concerned with Heartland’s plan to interfer with science education?”

Do you mean “interfere”??

Also, that so-called plan is from the document which has been conclusively proven to be fake, so why are you worried about it?

I am far more worried about the warmistas interfering with science education!

REAL SCIENCE is performed as follows:

1. Form an hypothesis to explain an observed phenomenon

2. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis, cataloging and accounting for as many variables as possible.

3. Collect data from your experiment.

4. Clearly show any algorithms, equations, and manipulations made to the raw experimental data, and provide CLEAR JUSTIFICATION for doing so.

5. Share both the DESIGN of your experiment, the RAW DATA, the algorithms and equations, and the ADJUSTED DATA with other scientists so that they can attempt to REPLICATE your experiment.

6. If the data from your experiment do not support your hypothesis, or if your experiment cannot be successfully replicated, REJECT your hypothesis and form a NEW hypothesis which can be tested.

This is called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and it is CLEARLY not taught or followed by the likes of the folks at the Hadley CRU, or Michael Mann, or the folks at the IPCC!! I strongly suspect that any scientists doing work for Heartland are REQUIRED to follow the scientific method!

I think the concern is because the curriculum has already been “interfered” with by the curriculum designers to reflect the consensus of the climate data manipulation technicians*.

Heartland, and other institutions, are understandably appalled by the long-term propaganda impacts of such a move, and would like to see the syllabus restored to something approaching its original rigour.

The comment by Manwichstick may have been an innocent question, or it could have been intentionally provocative.

If the latter, it would be one of the first attempts to shift the current debate away from the science vs consensus platform, to something more aligned with the “creation vs evolution” debate.

It is an old trick. If you are losing an argument, shift the subject into an area where you stand a better chance of winning or at least holding to a draw.

Heartland says that the item you are worried about is contained in a faked document:

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

In short, “mainstream” Climate Science is the entity that needs to stop faking real science. But it doesn’t seem to bother the Climate “Scientists” at all that their CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” have not produced even one correct relevant empirical prediction yet.

Therefore, I expect to see only more of this same kind of diversionary Propaganda. The Climate Science Propaganda Operation tried to model this diversion on the “Climategates”, but the two cases are not analogous and, regardless, the diversion in no way rebuts the problem mainstream Climate Science has with its 100% prediction failure rate [etc.].

Imo, that’s what you should be concerned about: the fact that mainstream Climate Science is simply not practicing real science.

Actually , its the teaching of climate science by teachers that are NOT scientists which needs to be stopped. Having social science, english, or even worse.. primary teachers, delving into this topic is not a good idea as they will almost certainly only put the one side of the science, because they DON’T KNOW any better.

Every social science teacher I have ever talked to seems woefully deficient in knowledge of proper scientific procedure, and DO NOT start me on the scientific knowledge of most primary teachers !!

Yet this is where climate science seems to be discussed !!!!

Climate science should ONLY be discussed under a proper scientific discussion process of looking in an unbiased way at all the literature.

And we all know that when proper scientific procedure is applied to the AGW hypothesis, it collapses like a house of cards in a hurricane.

I was talking about textbooks, and the curriculum, not free DVDs.
We get all kinds of freebies that don’t get used.
I’ve never seen Al’s film. I don’t know anyone that has the time, or desire to show it.

Is there some part of the “strategy” document most likely being a fake that you are failing to comprehend? I find your inability to grasp this concept somewhat alarming.

Are you saying that scientists with non-CAGW opinions and publications to back up their positions are not scientists? Your statement seems to infer as much.

As for alteration of textbooks… ummm science moves on mate. As understanding changes, textbooks follow behind. Take the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) that was pushed for decades as the foundation of investment finance as an example. This was ever the cornerstone of any introductory class on the subject.

I am sorry to inform folks but the EMH is extremely weak, which a cursory glance at the underlying assumptions and statistical analysis of real world data will tell you. This doesn’t stop lecturers teaching about it, but it should be accompanied by huge disclaimer warnings for the aforementioned reasons.

Climate science is no different. It is NOT settled science. There are many assumptions about unknowns, and I warrant there are still plenty unknown unknowns. To present the subject any other way does a disservice to teaching and the students. This should be about good science, and questioning it (i.e. scepticim), not dogma.

After you get your science from the scientists why don’t you apply a little critical thinking and logic. The CAGW hypothesis has been falsified. That is the scientific method. The biggest mistake that Hansen, an astronomer, made was to make a prophecy that could be proven false in his own life time. Stick a fork in your religios dogma, it is done, dead, deceased and desiccated.

Whoever wrote the fake document avoided saying anything derogatory about the warmist position. Clearly, they are so indoctrinated that they cant bring themselves to make the kind of comments we would make even when they are trying to sound like us.

Of course! What a clever trick. Make up something that falls apart after 1 day’s scrutiny and send it to DeSmog knowing that that is 1 day’s more scrutiny than they will apply to it. Give them enough rope… Brilliant. I think Alene, bless her, if she were still with us, would have loved that idea.

It plays on the notion that the Alarmists’ pattern of behaviour, demonstrated regularly, is to latch uncritically onto anything that fits their particular view of the world. Suppose their deep belief was that organisations like Heartland were evil and likely to stoop to unscrupulous methods to pursue their goals. Then finding a document that seemed to confirm that suspicion fits neatly in that belief system and is readily accepted as incontrovertibly true. But then again, things that seem too good to be true, usually are. Just ask poor old Jonathan Green from the ABC.

Just a theory, but it has very strong parallels with the Alene case (may she RIP).

Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) that was pushed for decades as the foundation of investment finance as an example. This was ever the cornerstone of any introductory class on the subject.

It think it is prefectly acceptable to include the best understanding of the day, however when our understanding changes, the old has to be turfed out. That’s fine. A textbook written in 1999 should reflect our best understanding at that time. But a textbook written in 2009 should remove any relics.
Science is the best way to resolve these different models. “Thinktanks” and special interests should butt out.

I understand you supporting Heartland in this particular case because of the ends, but I think it is a dangerous precedent.

Are you mplying that CAGW is not taught in schools as “settled science”? Ten years from now a student will be writing his doctoral thesis on how this whole scam occurred and how it lasted so long. I’m thoroughly convinced that they will say that it was all about the money. Wow, what a shock!

I think you make a few too many assumptions about peoples’ motivations. I am not a supporter of Heartland or any other think tank. Neither do I think it is appropriate for you to assume to know what they are thinking:

I’m pretty sure I’m understanding their intentions.

As for Greening of the curriculum which you claim to dislike… that boat sailed a long time ago. Maybe it isn’t as bad in Canada as other “progressive” countries, and if that is the case you should be greatful.

Too late, already have. Science teachers at Universities in Australia, as we speak, are teaching students that quote-”Science is a social construct”- unquote. No differing view is permitted if you wish to pass your courses. The not-to-subtle inference is that the facts presented under the auspices of objective scientific method are somehow moldable to the political or sociological whims of whomever the ruling classes of the time are favouring. And you don’t see anything wrong with that??

You are labouring under the assumption that you are living in a free and democratic society where science, and scientific teaching, is not tainted by corrupt political influence to an end of indoctrination. You are, unfortunately misinformed and pleasntly deluded. I don’t believe that is necessarily your fault, as you seem quite intelligent and reasonable, but I think you need to go back an revisit the assumptions you have made in arriving at the conclusion that science as we currently know it is somehow above reproach- as recent events in Climate Science have suggested, it most certainly is not!

Oh dear. How does my opinion of anything to do with Heartland affect my point, that the implication of claiming one document of a bunch is faked is that the rest are not?
I wanted to know whether I should bother reading them. Clearly I should.

Otter asked my opinion on the [scare quotes] ‘truth’ about Heartland.
It is highly likely that Heartland is a purely political organisation with no interest what-so-ever in objective truth. As a think tank, by definition, its primary mission is to further the (US) domestic political agenda of a small group of people or organisations.
It is not open, despite naming itself Libertarian. Neither is it a grass-roots movement – it is obviously selective and elitist.
It is not an organisation I think Australians should be promoting since its focus is US domestic policy.
It worries me to see Australians accepting money from any of these non-Australian politically oriented groups since it is unlikely to be to our long term benefit.

Well let’s face it. I asked a question. You asked my reason for asking that question. That argues, at best, a degree of suspicion. I ask another question, you ask a second question which would only suggest you were leading up to what emerged.
Whether you realise it or not, as debate, you are simply attempting to argue ad hominem.
You classify me, I do not classify you.

Heartland is, as far as I am aware, a legitimate organisation that is pursuing its stated goals, as you have discovered.

But you appear to think that Australians should not be involved because of its focus on US domestic policy. By that argument, you should argue that Australians should only work for Australian organisations, and the Chinese should only work for Chinese organisations, etc.

No. This is not xenophobia.
And I specifically believe that people of all nations should work together on global problems.
I also believe that people of all nations should be allowed to work with other peoples when there are common interests.
I am not so naive as to think that US domestic policy is necessarily outward looking, nor that it serves anything but US parochial interests.
Heartland, as a lobby group, has as a function the role of influencing US domestic policy to serve the interests of its owners. It is not a patriotic group, much as it presents as such, and Americans need to treat them sceptically – for there is no guarantee that it serves their own interests, much less ours.
One needs to think very carefully and very dispassionately before becoming financially beholden to a foreign owned, foreign focused, lobby group.
Now as to your interpretation of my position. Australians are of course free to work with whoever they choose. I personally prefer not to put public positions based on the policy of anyone I work for.

Other than the so-called “smoking gun” document, which appears to be more of a “fizzling dud” it appears the documents are real, though there is a question of some of them possibly having been altered.

This is my understanding so far. And of the “real” documents, unless you’re really into economics and accounting pretty damn boring stuff.

What I want to know about that document is, was it mailed at the same time by the same person?
This is easily checked. And from the style of analysis (eg WUWT) I rather suspect it was – otherwise the dissection would not be necessary and a simple email trail would have been presented.
Whether they are boring to some, they have caused a sharp enough defensive reaction (in fact a very clear over-protest) that one suspects there is a great deal more below the surface.

Oh really, a “very clear over-protest”? In what world are you living in? Most of us are just waiting for the lawyers to start serving writs.

Of course a faked document intended to “prove” things the remaining documents don’t say or support in order to cause problems for an organization is apparently nothing to “get defensive” about in some people’s odd little worlds.

How do you know that “simple email trail” won’t be presented in a court room once all the defendants have been named and served? Not everyone jumps to shouting “I’ll sue” across the blogs, some wait to let their lawyers do it.

I don’t know what legal processes will ensue. That’s a strategic point that has to do with who can out-mu$cle who than who. And maybe we’ll find out eventually whether the alleged fakery is actual fakery or not.
It’s obviously desirable from Heartland’s POV for people to focus on an alleged fake document.

That’s a debating convention, not a rule of logic.
The onus of proof will fall on who ever brings charges and/or sues.
If I understand correctly, someone was conned into mailing out a bunch of documents by being given an email address.
If that’s all that happened then the “fake document” was in the bunch of things to be mailed out. The simplest explanation for its presence is that it was part of the compilation.
Other stories seem to be more complicated, so require more explaining.
No matter – it will all wash out – the truth will emerge – and be conveniently ignored by one side or the other.

So why do you continue to ignore legal aspects while making statements about who brings charges, etc. Who would bring charges? deSmog? For what? They have no case. HI does have a case. And you are completely mistaken, if they bring charges they will not have to prove it is fake, the defendants will have to prove it is real.

Legally the onus of proof falls on the one claiming it is real when the supposed source says otherwise. HI has no need to do anything more than issue a request for retraction, make sure parties that fail to remove the document from their sites are aware of that request yet unwilling to comply, then call in the lawyers.

You also ignore the matter that their internal correspondence is all handled electronically according to the principal author of the documents. So why would there be a hard copy needing to be scanned in? As someone else has put it so aptly, they are quite competent at print to PDF.

Even left leaning media outlets question the document. That in itself should be quite telling. It was either faked or a cleverly planted data mine intended to sucker the stupid into publishing without questioning.

Without that particular document to plant the seeds of “what’s in the other documents” none of the rest mean anything. It was as so many others have noted an “own goal” on the part of those who rushed to make it available.

If it was so newsworthy and unquestionable, why have the major news sources pulled it or otherwise buried it so quickly?

Sure – no lawyer am I?
I wrote a longer response and then deleted it.
The fact is that what happens will be whether a civil or a criminal action is brought, and whether they bring a charge of falsification. In that event the onus of proof would be on them – surely. If they instead charge that material damage was done to them arising from lack of due diligence then I suspect you are quite right and the onus would be on deSmog and who-ever to prove they had due reason to believe them real.
No matter. These matters are always about spin and embedding population memes.

When studying at an Australian university, doing an environmental science minor, we were taught about how rises in C02 were preceded by rises in temp in the paleo record.

That was good, on the other hand, when a guest lecturer came in and started waffling about ‘patterns in numbers’ and how she and some fellow scientists were coming up with a way to win lotto…not so good.

While the fools will believe this, it won’t matter to the powers pushing the AGW scam, as they will have achieved their goal — near total power. (Are the Castro brothers bothered by starving Cubans? There’s no sign of it.)

But, not to end on such a downer — I really believe that we are winning the “hearts and minds” of the population and, at least in the nominally democratic countries, we will succeed in kicking them out.

Energy poverty as a social construct, mass starvation as a social construct, mass hysteria as a social construct, these I CAN believe. Unfortunately, Roy, you and I both know this will happen, but try as we might, some will refuse to heed the warnings being given.

And for some, the denial of these truths that we may find self evident will continue no matter what proof to the contrary is forthcoming. Even the evidence of one’s eyes will be insufficient for some, isn’t that right, Ross?

Poor old Graham Readfearn; out debated, out written by Lord Monckton; not in the same class as Bob Carter and has to resort to this pathetic beat-up. All the time while the real AGW scandals are floating past his blinkered eyes; scandals like the emails which noone of the pro-AGW side has the wit to appreciate; and the contemptible use of children by the pro-AGW side as shown here.

Not to mention the obscene amount of money being ‘wasted’ on ‘solving’ AGW; for instance over $13 billion being thrown at wind and solar between now and 2015. And the thing about that $13 billion is that it will doubled because the genuine energy suppliers will be obligated to buy from the ‘off-the-plan’ schemes scams promoting wind and solar because they have to source 20% of their energy from ‘renewables’ by 2020.

Is Graham interested in any of that; no, he is indignantly frothing at the mouth about the 1500 quid Bob Carter gets; which from my estimation wouldn’t cover his taxi fares.

What I can’t understand in all this is the warmists can obviously see that this is such a piddling amount, all the while knowing that on their side, they receive amounts of many magnitudes higher than this, not only from private groups, but also from different levels of Government.

I mean, after all, it’s not like this was funding from ‘big oil’ or something.

Oh! Er, speaking of big oil, I suppose this is, well, not really embarrassing per se, but it might necessitate the need to, er, change the subject.

It seems that over the last three or four years, that bastion of environmentalism, The Sierra Club, has been receiving donations in the amount of, umm, a piddling $25 Million from Chesapeake Energy, one of the biggest drillers for Natural Gas in the U.S. and a Company heavily involved in ‘Fracking’.

The NYTimes is upset with the Heartland Institute documents :
“Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Heartland documents was what they did not contain: evidence of contributions from the major publicly traded oil companies, long suspected by environmentalists of secretly financing efforts to undermine climate science. “
I liked the editoralising in the article:
Promotion of debate thru an alternative view becomes “efforts to undermine climate science” and to “cast doubt”.
Heaven forbid we should have doubt. Lets dig up Descartes – the “father of modern doubt” and burn him at the stake!
What about this charge – “to undermine climate science???”
This is repeated 8 times – no, not undermining Anthropogenic Climate Change but undermining Climate Science???
Wow the transmogrification continues – “Green House Gas Warming” to “Human induced Global Warming” to “catastrophic AGW” to “Climate Change” and now to “Climate Science”!!!

Saw yours at AB’s. The CAGW people there are out in force – SF and Poly are both back from hols and are in good form, with several others who I’ve not seen before. Over the break they were taking turns, now they’re all on the ball as fast as they can type. This Heartland thing seems to have shaken them up – perhaps they’re afraid of what’ll happen when it comes unravelled.

“Climate Science” is equal to “Rabid Belief in the CAGW falsified hypothesis”, so it is actually a true statement so say that if you are trying to undermine the falsified CAGW hypothesis, you are, in fact trying to undermine “climate science”.

Of course, as such, undermining “climate science” would be a HUGE WIN for logic and ACTUAL science, would it not?

You are labouring under the assumption that you are living in a free and democratic society where science, and scientific teaching, is not tainted by corrupt political influence to an end of indoctrination. You are, unfortunately misinformed and pleasntly deluded.

Winston, I’m think your assessment of me is almost bang on.

I am all about wishing for science and scientific teaching to be as free of political influence, and ideological influence as possible.

I don’t know of any other human endeavor which is as focused on removing bias.
I don’t know of any other way of finding out how the universe actually works.
I think it has had an excellent track record of getting things right, … eventually.

Because of this I think the safe bet, for me, is to teach what I have learned from the members of the atmospheric physics department at the University of Toronto, and not to teach my students based on what I have learned from the representatives of the Heartland institute.

I know the atmospheric physics folks, whom I am lucky enough to hang out with, struggle to remove bias from their work every day. They seriously don’t care about politics, they certainly don’t have any green-energy interests. The thought of them being part of any kind of conspiracy is totally absurd. I share beers and play darts with them and I trust them.

MWS – That is a good philosophy, much as my own in 30 years in chemistry R&D.

But I’ll make two comments. First scientists are human and have to eat, same as everyone. It is easy to slant papers and grant requests – when I went through we all knew you had more chance with the ARC if you mentioned ‘anticancer’ somewhere in your grant request. Now it is ‘climate change’.

Secondly any hypothesis must fit all the available data. That is why the LHC data is still being raked over by SUSY and not-SUSY people, and the superluminal neutrino finding has stirred things up. And these are only slight discrepancies from established theory. No, in IPCC climate science if something doesn’t fit usually it gets ignored.

Three datasets killed off CAGW for me: the relationship between previous solar cycle length and average temperature in the next cycle; the clear sinusoidal signal in long term temperature data such as HadCRUT v3, and that both of these fit so well with the CERES and ERBE data for climate sensitivity to explain the temperature record. And the IPCC sponsored GCM output does not.

So the responsible approach for scientists like you and I is to explain these correlations. The problem with the IPCC’s climate sensitivity value is that they ignore the sinusoidal signal (which correlates closely with the PDO and AMO indicies, also 5 year smoothed ENSO) and they ignore the solar magnetic effect upon climate (for which pSCL is a proxy). And if you know stats, by leaving our covarying variables and doing regression the regression process (which GCM’s ultimately use) will incorrectly assign all that variance to the variable you do include – in this case 2XCO2. Which then comes out about 6 times too high.

The key though is the pSCL correlation’s effect on temperature, which has risen over 20thC as has pCO2. And which many scientists have found is highly significant, explaining around 40-60% of 20thC temperatre rise. Until the IPCC contributing scientists can explain that and take it in account in the models (which they presently don’t) then the IPCC view is in error. And if they were to include these two variables the derived value of 2XCO2 from the models would fall to that of Lindzen/Choi and Spencer/Braswell. And at those climate sensitivity levels I’m sure you would agree that CAGW is excluded because of the inherent limits of such logarithmic relationships.

Sorry to go on for so long, but the ultimate point is this – the data does not actually agree with the IPCC position, and many climate sceptics are actually good scientists.

I would like the opportunity to share beers with you and chat more about what we both have learned about climate change. I am a newbie, only three years into this political hot potato. My interest is in science education, and I see climate change as a physics problem mostly – with consequences for chem. and bio.
I am a bit hesitant to share my thoughts about what you have replied to me since others may reply and think I’m being more combative than I intend. I simply wish to share my questions for you and my experiences. It would be great if only you replied.
I haven’t had a chance to bring up the specifics of what you wrote with my physics buddies yet, but I can tell you how things have usually gone in the past.
I bring them ideas I hear from websites like Jonova. They giggle, and say, “They honestly think we haven’t thought of that!”
I haven’t brought them any contrarian/skeptic idea that they haven’t already thought about.

I must say the way the IPCC is characterized in this website is also troubling to me. I have chatted with three people who have participated in the IPCC in various roles. These people aren’t fools by any means.

any hypothesis must fit all the available data

I don’t think your statement is technically correct. I’m not aware of any model/law that fits all the available data. Every model has boundary conditions and aspects that are not explained. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a best answer, however.
The LHC data is interesting but in my opinion there isn’t much there for ignoring it to be an issue. There also doesn’t seem to be much support from any existing paleo data.

And the IPCC sponsored GCM output does not.

Could you help me out with what you mean by this. The IPCC doesn’t sponsor a particular GCM – they use whatever is out there – and tabulate the various results – so if you could help me out to know what you are on about in this regard that would be helpful.

So the responsible approach for scientists like you and I is to explain these correlations

Maybe. sometimes correlations are just that. With the ‘evil carbon’ hypothesis there is at least some correlation with a rock-solid mechanism, would you agree?

It seems to me to quite easily argue low sensitivity, or high sensitivity, by picking the dataset and model appropriately, but the IPCC estimate looks at a bunch of estimates and squishes them together. Generally, I find low sensitivity types arguing that this one or the other low subset is routinely being ignored, but I don’t see that. The low sensitivity folks don’t seem to argue the high estimates are not reliable – honestly I have only heard those arguments from the mainstream science folks. The mainstreamers seem to be equally disenchanted with the less than 1.5 crowd and the greater than 4 crowd.

The key though is the pSCL correlation’s effect on temperature, which has risen over 20thC as has pCO2.

You will have to help me out a bit with this. Doesn’t SCL have mechanism issues and no correlation with the second half of the 20thC?

MWS – I apologise for using slightly incorrect wording re GCM’s. I was alluding to S&B 2010 where the output of the 18 models that they examined did not exhibit response to forcing that they observed in the CERES data, and the paper refers to them as IPCC AR4 models. You are right they are the output from various groups, but I was using shorthand.

You are correct that pSCL had a ‘mechanism issue’. Certainly that was the case when Butler and Johnson did the study I linked. See the wording in their conclusion. However we’ve seen more on a postulated mechanism with the Uni of Aarhus and CERN work. I might add that the paper many people cite, Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007 I found quite disappointing even though I have a lot of time for Prof Lockwood and his group. I can give detail why if you like. The group’s recent paper on clouds appears to well support the Svensmark mechanism, though I’ve only scanned it and read his conclusions. My interest hasn’t been in the radiative side.

Back onto low climate sensitivity, the CERES analysis by S&B 2010 are for short term response to transient forcing. At the time I was thinking about entering the field as I had some ideas which could attract funding (one on solar energy and another on geoengineering). But I wanted to independently check the low vs high sensitivity cases, so I asked myself this question: if B&J 1996 worked out a correlation with pSCL for Armagh, I wonder if I can use that correlation to recreate the Central England Temperature series? CET being very similar climatically but a distinct dataset. Also CET is the longest time series in extant. So I tried, and you can see it works rather well. Including volcanic effects based on Pinatubo would be better, but I was just trying to set up a test. If you goal seek a 2XCO2 in Excel you get a value of 2XCO2 of 0.694 C with the ocean cycle component and about 0.81 C without it. Pretty conclusively that suggests the S&B 2010 and L&C 2011 measurements of 2XCO2 are on the money and the GCM derived values are in error. Furthermore it holds over a period of centuries. As far as I know, no on else has attempted this approach, and it would be publishable if I could be bothered with the flaming hoops you have to jump through, but I have plenty publications in my field and I don’t need any more. I’ll leave that study to someone who wants a paper.

Regarding correlations, you are right that they can be myth. But my experience includes the development of quite sophisticated statistical models which have been used in large projects (and which has been published in one case). Also I’ve been doing iterative process models for about 20 years. So I know how they tick. My models get audited and I’ve done the same of some large operations. So I know from experience why the GCM’s fail so abysmally on hindcast, and how playing with the degrees of freedom can smooge a fit. This recent emphasis on volcanoes re the LIA being an example. It is ignoring the elephant, which is the powerful magnetic effect. Leave that out and your sensitivity number will always be ‘way too high. Anytime you use training to the temperature record that will happen.

And that is the answer to your question of the 2nd half of the 20thC. If you look at my statistical model it fits best then. That is because it includes the ocean cyclic temperature rise for the period 1970-2003, as based on the sinusoidal – which you also see in PDO, AMO and ENSO. That is 0.27 C worth of rise! Huge, over a short time. And that 0.27 C is the same over the century because the bottom of the sine curve was also at 1900, 1.5 wavelengths back. So pSCL works for the last 30 years just fine…when you include the oceanic effect and CO2. Which does have an effect, just not much of one.

Sorry again I have gone too long. And apology to the mods, we’re off track of Jo’s post. But you appeared to want a detailed answer.

I think the safe bet, for me, is to teach what I have learned from the members of the atmospheric physics department at the University of Toronto, and not to teach my students based on what I have learned from the representatives of the Heartland institute.

I certainly hope you don’t think that wagering is good science. But I think those Atmospheric folks might have something to teach. I do hope that they convey accurately what they DON’T know.

I didn’t know that Heartland offered a PhD.

On a personal note, I recall you posting here before. I think you do a nice job as a luke warmist, maybe you could stick around awhile?

I am all about wishing for science and scientific teaching to be as free of political influence, and ideological influence as possible.

I agree entirely, and don’t want Heartland or anybody else to interfere directly with scientific teaching, per se. However, such people, or anyone for that matter, should be able to freely refute faulty methodology, to highlight flawed logic and to expose shoddy practices that run contrary to proper scientific principles. Provided these arguments are legitimate, it doesn’t matter from whom they arise. Hansen, Mann, et al started a dangerous precedent of bullying and marginalisation of those who believed their data was compromised, so they have no one to blame but themselves when those outside the consensus cry foul. And a bloody good thing they did to, no matter what their (unsubstantiated) supposed ulterior motives may be speculated to be.

I don’t know of any other human endeavor which is as focused on removing bias.
I don’t know of any other way of finding out how the universe actually works.
I think it has had an excellent track record of getting things right, … eventually.

Scientists are Human, and not particularly more ethical than average. I currently am partially funded by soft (grant) money at a university. The availability of grant money for certain research, even if it is dependant on getting pre-determined results, will select for those scientists who will do what it takes to get it. Scientists who object to these (usually unstated) conditions aren’t funded.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

And, what Ike didn’t explicitly add (but understood well) is that it is politics that directs the flow of public money, so domination by the ‘power of (government) money’ means ‘domination by politics’.

This is precisely the situation of Climate Science today. Take your blinders off, mate.

If you have trouble with Heartland’s credentials that may be just a lazy person’s cop out. Try highly credentialed climate scientists like Roy Spencer, John Christy or Richard Lindzen just for starters. Once you begin there you will find there is a large number of relevant scientists, world wide, that are skeptical of the alarmist scientist’s spin on the science. They simply don’t buy the catastrophic adjective. That is because they do not share the alarmists guesses about important things like the nature of the system’s feedbacks.

Some of us have checked out many alarmist climate scientists in Australia and overseas and almost without exception they are first and foremost environmental activists who like James Hansen will use ice age predictions or more recently AGW when it suits them to further their environmental/ecological solutions.

That biased attitude, which essentially starts with the IPCC rationale for its existence, is not a sound basis on which to understand how Earth’s exceedingly complex climate works.

Hmm. Firstly, I’ve no idea why Heartland would be at all embarrassed by this leak. It documents what they do, and I can’t imagine anyone being surprised at that.

As for the “fake” document, Heartland could easily prove that it is fake. Someone in Heartland was tricked into sending these documents by email. So, look through the “sent” emails, and find what was sent. I’m sure a diligent IT person could do this – there must be some record on a server somewhere. So sorry, they can keep saying “fake” until they are blue in the face, but I’ll think that it is real until they take the simple step of proving otherwise.

And again, what have they got to worry about. The “fake” document seems to match their modus operandi pretty well, and many of the funding details contained in it match details in other “non-fake” documents.

I shall continue to assume that right wing think tanks, like Heartland, and in Australia, The Centre for Independent Studies and The Institute of Public Affairs, are funding climate change “skepticism”.

JB
Here is a hypothetical for you.
I have received a document that appears to be from you saying that you are conspiring to commit a crime. Lets say it implies that you are looking to import drugs into Australia.
Before checking my sources I release this into the blogosphere.
You come out and say this is a fake.

Should it be my responsibility to prove that the document is legit?
Or should I say So sorry, they can keep saying “fake” until they are blue in the face, but I’ll think that it is real until they take the simple step of proving otherwise.

It is par for the course for climastrology cultists to demand we prove a negative to support our case. Examples:

Prove that warming from the mid 1970′s to around 2000 WASN’T caused by humans – despite that fact similar warming and cooling cycles have been going on for 10,000 years.

Prove that global warming has actually stopped and ISN’T simply being masked by “natural variation” – despite the fact that the very existence of “natural variation” was vehemently denied right up until when they needed to pull a rabbit out the hat to explain why it wasn’t warming anymore.

Prove that “Trenberth’s Travesty” – the “missing heat” – ISN’T hiding in the ocean deeps – despite the fact that there is no known way for it to get out of the atmosphere into the oceans in the first place.

Prove that sustainable “positive feedback” ISN’T happening to multiply the effects of CO2 – despite the fact that there are no known examples of sustainable positive feedback anywhere in Nature.

And so on ad nauseum.

Under the circumstances demanding Heartland prove an alleged stolen document IS a fake, is child’s play to the climastrology crowd.

It’s a fair enough position, John, and not a million miles from my own. It’s not like Heartland have been hiding their position.

But what you and the others get wrong is you think that it’s an ‘anti science’ position.

No, it’s actually an anti-stupid-public-policy position. The warmies use the science to try and justify idiotic public policies. Personally I think there’s enough holes in their policies to sink the idea forever, but the apparent continuing popularity of Keynes half-baked ideas shows the even the stupidest public policies can get a hearing, if there are enough useful idiots to form an audience.

So the fight against these stupid, wealth destroying policies has to be on two fronts – one on the dodgy post-normal rubbish trying to be passed off as scientific research, and one on the dodgy public policies themselves.

The moment these theories stop being used to flush trillions down the toilet for no gain, you’ll see me leave the climate wars and stick to my main game, which is trying to get into people lured by ‘left’ thinking to pop out of their delusion and accept the world as it is, rather than as it should be. This affliction to try and bend the laws of economics and the way of human nature is the chief fingerprint of someone who can’t think rationally and is suffering socialist delusions.

You never see me pop up in arguments about evolution or anything like that. Simply because they don’t ever morph into public policy.

brc, I don’t mind if they are against stupid policy. As long as they don’t trash science while they do it.

And displays his ignorance about the works and purposes of the Heartland Institute.

Here is an example of the work HI do. From their Climate Change Reconsidered Report

climate modeling appeared in 2010 in Nature Reports Climate Change. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado (USA), wrote that one of the major objectives of upcoming climate modeling efforts will be to develop new and better representations of important climate processes and their feedbacks. The new work, Trenberth wrote, should increase our understanding of factors we previously did not account for … or even recognize. In expressing these sentiments, Trenberth gave voice to the concerns of many scientists who are skeptical of the reliability of GCMs. This is not ―denial. Trenberth, at least, would deny being a ―skeptic of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It is, rather, the humility of true scientists who—attempting to comprehend the complexity of the world of nature and its innermost workings—are well aware of their own limitations and those of all seekers of such truths. Although much has been learned, as Rosenberg and Trenberth outline in their respective essays, what is known pales in comparison to what is required ―certainty as Trenberth puts it.

What the Heartland Institute do, John, is present the science the IPCC ignores. You will not find Trenberths comments in any IPCC approved document for policy makers.

So the questions you need to answer are:-

* What is wrong with the paragraph I pasted from the HI report above?
* Why do you think that paragraph will never appear in an IPCC document?
* Are you afraid to learn about the science that the IPCC ignores?
* Who do you think is so above reproach, so intimately knowledgeable about Earths climate, that they and they alone should choose what is included in reports for policy makers? Can you name these people?

Oh come on Baa! What the Heartland Institute does is documented in the stuff that was released. They try to cause doubt and confusion. That’s why the documents came as no surprise to anyone. Their strategy is obvious.

So in the paragraph you quote, they emphasise the stuff that is not known, because focussing on the stuff that already is known does not suit their argument.

Of course I’m not afraid to learn of any genuine science that the IPCC ignores. As long as its not the sort of crap that regularly surfaces in blogs. You know, 2nd law, pressure determines temperature, its caused by the phases of Mars, etc etc

As far as who gets to contribute to reports for policy makers – surely its the same as always – the experts?

John Brookes
February 18, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Oh come on Baa! What the Heartland Institute does is documented in the stuff that was released.

You mean in the faked documents? Well now that you’ve made clear what you count as evidence, it makes your bizarre beliefs more understandable.

If you really think that documents faked by those who oppose you count as evidence of what you think and do, why don’t you just let me make all of your blog posts from now on? What difference could it make?

……and stick to my main game, which is trying to get into people lured by ‘left’ thinking to pop out of their delusion and accept the world as it is, rather than as it should be. This affliction to try and bend the laws of economics and the way of human nature is the chief fingerprint of someone who can’t think rationally and is suffering socialist delusions.

Good notion.

I recently started explaining that the Left (USA style) always believes there is something wrong and needs to effect massive change to fix. The Right believes things are fine just leave them alone. For the Left it is always a “cause”. You’ll hardly ever see a protest march organized from the Right.

There is a problem with this though; the Right lets too much go by before reacting and the Left never yields turf (they always negotiate for compromise). Meaning that over time the Left wins, always creeping forwards with their agenda.

Both sides? What if one side is just making stuff up? Do they deserve a mention?

“Skeptics” have no credibility because they jump on any lame argument that might support their case. They have no shame.

If “skeptics” could come up with a consistent story about global warming that was not instantly refutable, and then they stuck to that story, then maybe it could be presented in school. As it is, there is no consistent “skeptic” position, unless you count the following (stolen from a comment on SKS):

No John, the IPCC don’t deserve a mention, Mann and his Hockey Stick (grafting several disparate unrelated data sets together to give a false picture of the historical climate record is poor science and a complete fabrication, hiding the decline in one data set by grafting a different one over the top- fabulous!) doesn’t deserve a mention, Phil Jones and his hidden data manipulations and FOI avoidance don’t deserve a mention (to paraphrase him- why should I give you my data if you’ll only find something wrong with it?- and he is publicly funded- Jesus wept!). The list goes on- I could mention Kemp and Hansen’s landmark sea level study which was a only a landmark in complete stupidity, the suppression of perfectly valid observational evidence by NASA of the work of Miskolczi about the consistency of atmospheric optical depth over the last 50 years, that effectively ruled out CO2 as a cause of late 20th century warming (even if you doubt Miskolczi’s explanatory hypothesis surrounding these observations, there is NO EXCUSE FOR SUPPRESSING HIS FINDINGS, none, period!!), etc, etc, etc.

The skeptic case you have summarised above bears not the slightest resemblance to anything I have heard from skeptics, only post-modern science-lites like you John who attempt to put words in others mouths to attempt to discredit them- Shoddy. No skeptic says “nothing is happening”, what does that even mean anyway- is that your idea of scientific precision? By god, John, and you teach people science?- be afraid, be very afraid! Likewise, nobody has to my knowledge said point 3, 4 or 6. Point 5 is a poorly worded attempt to paraphrase those who would argue that the economic cost of adaptation is far less than in mitigation- whatever the cause of the apparent warming of the late 20th Century, in the absence of any real evidence that said warming is in any way adverse to civilisations thriving (past experience tells us it is quite the contrary), and that the cost of overturning the entire sociopolitical structure of the world’s economy in a rapid and scattershot fashion is likely to kill large numbers of the global population (especially the poor and disenfranchised), while compromising the viability of the most advanced and successful economies of the world.

So, what is wrong with the logical argument that the cost of adapting to any effects from the said warming, even in the unlikely event that it continued, are dwarfed by the money being spent on a fruitless quest to outdo King Canute and alter the world’s climate by some artificial means?- please enlighten us as to why we should risk human lives, endanger the physical and economic health of the entire human race, or submit to a proto-socialist totalitarian regime that would stifle individuality, suppress human ingenuity and invention, and remove everything that humanity has attained in the post-industrial revolution and smight it in a twinkling based on a half-guessed, approximation of global climate, based on a theory from 1896 that was debunked in 1906 and has never been convincingly shown to exist experimentally?

Most skeptics are far more consistent than alarmists, whose predictions are called projections because they have no predictive quality (?!?), goal posts keep changing to match the data that doesn’t fit the projections (eg Climate sensitivity for one), etc. it’s only the misquoting of skeptics by alarmists in a desperate attempt to shore up their shrinking authority on all matters climate, as it becomes increasingly plain tha their modelling via GCMs is about as accurate as Treasury budget modelling- ie not even remotely. You see, you can’t accurately model the climate if you can’t quantify the various parameters, or even remotely understand how they interact- a scientist should be humble enough to admit what they don’t know, rather than cobbling together a few apparent correlations and then prematurely ejaculating a warning of impending calamity.

So, the Boston Herald seems more keen to push the discussion to the bottom of the barrel, not up the supposed ladder that the deluded believe they are ascending. It’s a race to the bottom for alarmists, and the harm they have done to science is unforgivable and will take generations to correct by regaining the trust of the public. In your alternate reality, I’m sure it looks like you’re winning- that’s purely parallax error from looking at the situation through those blinkers of yours, John.

“Skeptics” have no credibility because they jump on any lame argument that might support their case. They have no shame.

And follows that up with

as it is, there is no consistent “skeptic” position,

Poor John. It must be a painful existence when one has such a narrow perspective, such a lack of understanding of reality.

Because I like you John, I’m going to edify you YET AGAIN.

You alarmist econut lemmings have a consistent position because the United Nations, wishing to implement an agenda, used the auspices of their Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization to set up a panel called the IPCC.

Spanning a period of 25 years, 17 major conventions, countless meetings and gatherings and vast resources, this panel presented a “consistent position” to policy makers of the UN member states.

You display profound ignorance by comparing the above to sceptics who by and large are individuals like Jo.
These individuals have neither the organization nor the resources of the UN. Yet you expect sceptics to have a consistent position?

How could you be so ignorant John? Do you never take a deep breath and try to see the big picture?
What on Earth did you learn at university? Above all else, a university education is supposed to provide you with clear thinking and A CAPACITY TO LEARN.

Who has no shame John? Grow up. A time will come when you will reflect on all this. THE SHAME IS YOURS JOHN and it will kill you one day.
Open your mind, understand what’s happening around you, what’s happening in the big wide ugly world before it’s too late.

I notice you and others posting at desmog etc, are hanging onto the fading possibility that the disputed ‘smoking gun’ document will be revealed to be legit after all. Comes as no surprise to me. Afterall it appears to me that was likely written by someperson with exactly same worldview as your own. Of course you would accept its contents on face value at first blush; afterall it probably reflects your presumptions on this issue perfectly.

What compels me to rubberneck this trainwreck in progress is that complete absense of skepticism and critical thinking expressed by pro CAGWers. As a computer programmer I kill a bit of time at slashdot.org every now and then. A site that has really gone downhill in recent years. I first read about this story there. 550+ comments and only one poster that I noticed, *one*, who was a CAGW believer, raised the prospect that the core document is a fabrication. That this poorly written document, whose prose/style/grammar simply does not feel right at all, did not set off more peoples ‘baloney detection kits’ on one level astounds me; but then again is quite expected.

What an utter shock that brooksie is a deSmugBlagh fan. I suppose if I stuck around there long enough to see commentary, I would have known that… but I can’t get past the stomach-wrenching stupidity and bile of the article writers there.

Just noticed that the office copier/scanner leaves a code that identifies the machine in the properties of the scan document … if that too is the case here then the fraudster will be in for a very rude shock if that machine code can be tracked back through the maintenance contract.

What does this money buy?
As reported in the Westie (though not echoed on JN yet to my knowledge) Australia’s Auditor-General found that 52 statements made in the $12 million Clean Energy Future campaign were improperly sourced, and three critical statements presented as fact could not be attributed to any source at all (ie they were fabricated opinion).

The report said three key statements – that the scheme would cut 160 million tonnes of pollution every year, that over half of the money will be used to fund tax cuts, pension rises and higher family payments and that the biggest polluters will pay for every tonne of carbon they put into the atmosphere – were not properly referenced in the material.

Warwick Hughes reports that our Bureau of Meteorology refuses to disclose under FOIA the weather station data received from NIWA as part of a back-scratching “peer review” of the latter’s ostensible legitimacy.

Meanwhile, since at least Nov 2011, possibly earlier, and presumably continuing up to and including the present day, the IPCC’s inner circle are operating an Internet-based drop box for communications so that future FOI requests can’t shine light on their conniving and mental gymnastics. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the purpose of this “internet cloud” storage is: “using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications”

Whilst genuine scientific discoveries and lies both cost money, I posit that only lies cost money in maintenance and that the TCO on truth is comparatively cheaper. If you accept that, then you ought to accept we are getting more climate facts out of Carter and the Heartland conferences than out of our government appendages. The exposed money gap predicts it. The reported dodging, deceiving, and spinning confirms it.

Ultimately this flash-in-the-pan non-issue is not about global warming science, it is a smear campaign borne of a political struggle of deluded watermelon statists against profit-seeking free-market capitalists. No educated person needs further reminders from history as to why the latter is the least worst option for organising production and it would (for example) adapt to demand for “clean” energy if consumers were to ever be convinced present methods were “too dirty” to an extent free people were willing to pay for. The only dirty energy involved here is the zeal for slander.

16 Feb: Reuters: New Zealand carbon prices fall below Europe’s
New Zealand carbon prices rose on Friday, but fell below European permit prices for the first time since July after strong gains in Europe due to planned legislative changes.
Spot permits under New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme were seen trading around NZ$7.95 ($6.60), brokers said, compared with the previous week’s price around NZ$7.65. Weekly traded volumes slipped to 200,000 from 250,000 last week.
The European market surged on Thursday on speculation that prices would rise in the coming months on a European initiative to bolster prices…
EU allowances rallied as much as 9 percent to an eight-week high around 9.11 euros on Thursday, jumping on news that European lawmakers on a key parliamentary committee had agreed to support measures that would raise carbon prices.
In the secondary market for U.N.-backed carbon credits, spot CERs jumped more than 10 percent to an 4.7 euros, also their strongest in eight weeks…http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/newzealand-carbon-idUSL5E8DG5G420120217

16 Feb: Chicago Tribune: Reuters: EU politicians agree compromise text on CO2 allowances
The compromise text, as widely expected, does not specify how many carbon allowances might be withheld to tackle a huge surplus in the market.
Instead, it calls on the Commission to amend regulation on auctioning carbon permits and to implement measures, which may include “withholding the ***necessary amount of allowances,” a parliamentary source told Reuters.
“The good thing is it is giving the Commission a mandate to act before the third phase (of the carbon market from 2013). However, we lost the numbers. It was just not possible to get broad support,” Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout told Reuters.
He said the negotiators from all parties supported the compromise agreed late on Wednesday and there was “a good chance” it would get voted through on February 28.
That would be no guarantee that the Commission would decide to act, but it would add to pressure for reform that has come from industry and business, as well as politicians and environmentalists…http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-eu-carbontre81f0rq-20120216,0,897961.story

this doesn’t even remind people the carbon dioxide tax will be increased annually. saw five minutes of Channel Nine news today as i was watching the cricket and, immediately after the headline story on Australia Air going bust and 4,000 stranded, 100,000 forward tickets being worthless, etc., Ch9 followed with a “story” about the economy is going great guns!!! i changed stations to watch the cricket elsewhere…

16 Feb: Ninemsn: Carbon tax more inflationary than thought
Although the tax was unlikely to lead to higher interest rates in the short term, its effect on inflation could be greater than expected over the longer term, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) says…
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) said on February 10 that the introduction of the carbon tax was likely to add 0.7 percentage points to the consumer price index (CPI) in the second half of 2012…
Mr Oster and Ms Knight said the carbon tax was likely to slow medium term gross domestic product (GDP) growth by between 0.3 and 0.5 percentage points over 2012-2013.
They attributed the lower rate of growth to an expected cut in consumption and increased cost of capital.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8420722

Its the middle of the night and I’m way off topic but I couldn’t sleep anyway.
Thought I’d share this.
I’ve just finished reading Chris Kenny’s book Women’s Business – The story behind the Hindmarsh Island affair. I think it would be really good reading for all climate watchers – the parallels seem astonishing.
For those not familiar its the story of the fabrication of secret women’s business in order to stop a bridge across the Murray

First the desperation then the fabrication of evidence.
Then the challenge by the dissenters followed by the furious circling of the wagons by the group thinkers around the fabricators
The final exposure of the fabrication and the collapse of the fabricators evidence
But in the end it is the dissenters who, though vindicated, are shunned while the fabricators are exonerated as having demonstrated higher motives in the fabrication than the dissenters in the exposure. Thus the group thinkers exonerate themselves from their tawdry behaviour during the whole affair.

Many people (even some who are scientists) apparently don’t understand science itself very well at all.

Science is the search for truth, but real science NEVER CLAIMS TO HAVE ANY ACTUAL ANSWERS!

The most real science can do is to say, “we have this hypothesis, and it seems to describe reality so well that we may decide to call it a theory or even a scientific “law”; however as soon as something comes along which falsifies this hypothesis (which could happen tomorrow or may not happen until 1000 years from now, but most likely it WILL happen), then we must reject this hypothesis (or theory or “scientific law” in favor of a new hypothesis which better reflects reality (but probably still won’t be a perfect representation either!!!)”

As soon as you hear ANYONE saying “science has provided incontrovertible truth” or “the science is settled” or “skepticism is anti-science” then you should AUTOMATICALLY know that the person you are listening to is NOT A SCIENTIST IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, and is most likely a Shaman, a Mystic, or a High Priest of some sort.

Things go as well as can be expected – at least I seem to have the dribbling under control.
Right shoulder remains stuck in ‘thumb sucking’ mode however.

Google’s “news” search continues to return a “no results” so they are still blacking it out, but a general search now gets gets 18,100 hits – up 1600 in two hours. I don’t think they can keep the lid on it much longer and retain any credibility.

I think we just may be witnessing one of Taleb’s ‘Black Swan’ moments.

I’d love to see it. But a legal action is a hit or miss proposition at best. Juries are not really very predictable. A good credible threat might do wonders though because the blogers would be thinking the same thing.

Most such cases never go to court. They are settled on the steps outside.
Don’t lose sight of the following facts:

1) – Unlike most of the rest of us, the HI DO have funds available for legal counsel.

2) – HI’s raison d’etre is to discredit these pseudo-scientific cultists.
What better way than a few very public (in the blogosphere) defamation cases?

3) – As Pointman outlines in his article (link above), it is not up to HI to prove the document is a fake – which is easy enough to do if it is.
Rather, it is up to Romm, Littlemore and the other potential slanderers to prove it is genuine – a virtually impossible task if HI deny it.

“….The only document involved that could be viewed as damning in any way is almost certainly a fake. The others are fairly boring, unless you really are surprised that any organization would take (very modest) donations to explore alternative hypotheses on the subject of global warming and climate change.”

“Supporting alternative hypotheses in science…what a scandal!
Only fringe lunatic save-the-Earth-by-killing-everyone-but-me types could really believe that any organization would actually promote “dissuading teachers from teaching science”. The person who wrote this obviously fraudulent Heartland goal clearly knows little about science or what kind of organization Heartland is.”

“I know Joe Bast, the president and CEO of Heartland. He is of the highest character and intelligence, and I would consider his motives on the climate subject to be at or above anyone I have met in this business, on either side of the issue.”

“This is why I agree to take part in the Heartland climate conferences, for less than half of my normal speaking fee. I don’t necessarily agree with all the science and ideas presented there, but I would rather it be presented and discussed than be censored, which is the U.N. IPCC’s modus operandi.”

“The last conference even showcased a debate between me (a “luke-warmer”, I’m told) and a scientist-supporter of the IPCC position. That’s a level of openness you will not find on the IPCC’s side of the issue.”

“The real scandal is that it took a private organization like Heartland to compile the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications which suggest that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might not be a problem for humanity or the biosphere. This is what the IPCC should have done, if it had any scientific objectivity.”

I think “This is why I agree to take part in the Heartland climate conferences, for less than half of my normal speaking fee.” is worth noting, as is the context.
Charging a speakers fee is not common behaviour in science conferences – although honorariums are not unheard of. Registration fees are more likely to be charged to speakers, than fees paid.
Also related – Bob carter and Fred Singer paid as editors of a Journal. That also tends to put it outside mainstream.

Does that mean the DeSmog blog will be prosecuted in the near future by Heartland as they flatly refuse to remove the document and publish retractions as requested? You have to wonder at the lack of intellegence shown by these people..

My suspicion is there is this belief, based on what I am told is taking place in the comments at deSmog, that “if it wasn’t real they would have sued us by now” as though things in the real world move as quickly as a 1 hour episode of “Law and Order”.

I have seen those on the left make the “that’s not true and if you don’t take that down I’ll sue you” statement. I suspect they are under the impression that HI would respond in the same manner.

HI has already issued a statement in which they state the document is fake and requested that it be removed. No mention of legal action simply because they can wait and see who refuses to remove the document. Once they are certain the document has not been removed and that the party in question is fully aware of their statement and their request then it is time to let the lawyers do what they are paid to do.

The next communication with said party should be of the form “You have been served.”

There’s a scathing second writeup at The Atlantic by Megan McArdle (as if the first wasn’t enough) that takes the DeSmoggers to task. Note to Hoggan and crew – when you can’t even get a left leaning news outlet to back you up, even in the slightest, you’ve lost the battle.

Still going to support this motley crew of propagandist idiots? tristan,catamon,Jeremyc,Ross James,John Brooks and other clueless AGW believers?

I’m a house fire sceptic. I don’t expect my house to burn down, but I insure because it could happen. But I’m an AGW denialist. I know it’s a lefty conspiracy that is never going to happen so I think precautionary measures are a dangerous diversion of resources and statist plot.

Do all you people who call yourself sceptics really believe that there is a chance that AGW is not a total crock? If you do, keep calling yourself sceptics and don’t be surprised if the AGW zealots call you on it.

Alphonse – The problem is there is a lot of data out there which does not make it into the IPCC’s position. Numerous papers came out in the last year which strongly suggest most of the warming which occurred in the last century was due to indirect solar effects on cloud formation and on oceanic cyclic effects, neither of which are included in the official models.

If you look at my posts above you will see some of that science.

Scientists weight the balance of probabilies based on the data and come to a conclusion. That might be made into a hypothesis. Provided they actually look at the data, or are allowed to. In the climate space there are two hypotheses: strong CO2 and weak CO2 plus solar. The latter hypothesis fits the climate data like a glove.

But for many scientists who have careers on the line (and mortgages) this is a real visceral threat, especially in this time of high unemployment. So it will take a while for the solar/low sensitivity hypothesis to become the new consensus, since so many scientists lose out if that happens. But it will happen. The global temperature record does not care about job prospects for scientists, it just is what it is.